• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

is Rome a coastal city?

redhulkz

Prince
Joined
Oct 31, 2002
Messages
346
Location
Singapore
Qn: is Rome a coastal city?

IMO, historic Rome is not coastal city.
Rome proper is located further inland.
according to historians, the intention is to avoid coastal raidings by pirates or hostile nations.

Ironically, Rome is a coastal city in a civ Europe map. so i think thats incorrect.

**Plus: Carthage is a coastal city. the city is very close to its harbors
 
It depends on how you think of the city concept. If you take city in a literal sense, then the map is wrong. If you think of it as an attempt to model accurately the ability of a civ, then a coastal city would be a good idea.

Civ units can't go up rivers, real ships can. I river city might be the base of a navy. That can't be accurately modeled in Civ III.
 
Well, the world isn't built up by tiles now is it?
 
Redhulkz, I think you are right about Rome's not technically being a coastal city. It is too far inland to have direct access to the coast and to have harbors, etc. Regarding the map, maybe you could edit it so that it is one tile away from the coast. That way, it would be close to the coast, but not quite accesible. In fact, in order to prevent bombardment (just as in historical times), you could place it two or three tiles away from the coast. If this would add more historicity and enjoyment for you, go for it.
 
and I've always thought of these cities as something more like provinces or states, couldn't you see playing on a "world map" as the americans and trying to make the us like it is, one "city" named after each state and in their approximate locations
 
In the real world, Rome is like 25 miles from the coast I believe. The ancient Romans had a port town called Ostia Antica that they used as a shipping area/supply center for Rome. So while it's not technically on the coast, it probably had better port facilities than many ancient cities that were. In terms of realism in Civ, I think it's probably OK either on the coast or one square in. But hey, it's your game--you can put it in China if you want ;)
 
Rome as an ancient city was landlocked. Sea acces came via the Tiber river. later, as the empire grew out from twon-based to area, the town of Ostia became Romes harbour town. So I'd say you could see the time before Map making as the town-based empire time, and the time afterwards it is OK if Rome has access to the sea :D
 
no, rome is 1 tile away from sea.
if world were grided, I guess
 
Zcylen: Ancient Rome was less then 30km far from the sea. can't be one tile. it has to be coastal.
 
A matter of scale, really.

At a latitude of 42 degrees the horizontal line stretching the entire map width through Rome is approximately 17,000 miles. If the map is 100x100 then the tile having Rome on it represents an area of 170x170 miles, and a distance of 20 miles from the Sea just is not representable in that kind of map, and you can as well imagine the Rome-tile including Ostia, Rome the City, and quite a bit of its surrounding areas.

OTOH if you are playing on a huge map of Italy, then it makes more sense to have Rome not _directly_ on the coast. Depending on your map scale and other issues you could then have Ostia as a city in itself, or to make Tiber (the river) "navigable" up to Rome with a narrow string of coastal tiles. The river-approach would probably simulate better the fact, that Ostia was more a harbor of Rome than a town in its own name, I think. It would make Rome easily blockaded, too, representing its dependence of imported grain and other shipping.
 
Originally posted by Covenant47
In the real world, Rome is like 25 miles from the coast I believe. The ancient Romans had a port town called Ostia Antica that they used as a shipping area/supply center for Rome.

The town was called Ostia. The ruins of the city that you see today are called Ostia Antica.:p
 
Back
Top Bottom